Bombay High Court
The Divisional Controller, ... vs Sambhaji Shankarrao Ghatkar on 8 March, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP 7035/12
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.7035 OF 2012
The Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation, Latur Division,
Latur.
...Petitioner...
Versus
Sambhaji Shankarrao Ghatkar
Age : 36 years, Occu.: Service,
R/o : Mhandol, Post Rohina,
Tq. Chakur, District Latur.
...Respondent...
.....
Shri D.S. Bagul, Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Y.R. Marlapalle, Advocate for respondent.
.....
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE: 08.03.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard
finally by the consent of the parties.
2] The petitioner - Corporation is aggrieved by the
impugned judgment of the Industrial Court dated 13.3.2012
by which Complaint (ULP) No.120/2010 filed by the
respondent - employee has been allowed. The order of
punishment dated 28.2.2004 by which one year's increment
WP 7035/12
- 2 -
was stopped permanently, has been quashed and set aside.
3] Shri Bagul, learned Advocate for the petitioner,
submits that the Industrial Court has concluded in
paragraph no.11 of the impugned judgment that important
witnesses are not examined by the Corporation in the
enquiry and there was no material for the Enquiry Officer
to base his conclusions holding that the respondent is
guilty. Shri Bagul submits that the respondent - driver
was driving a Bus, which collided with a motorcyclist and
the said accident led to the death of the motorcyclist
after about four days.
4] He, however, submits that the Industrial Court
concluded that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are
perverse and hence the order of punishment deserves to be
interfered with. He relies upon the judgment of this
Court in the matters of Maharashtra State Cooperative
Cotton Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. v. Vasant
Ambadas Deshpande (2014 I CLR 878) and MSRTC, Beed v.
Syed Saheblal (2014 III CLR 547).
5] Shri Marlapalle, learned Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent - employee, has strenuously
supported the impugned judgment. Contention is that the
WP 7035/12
- 3 -
motorcyclist was in a drunken state. The respondent was
driving the Bus at the slow speed of about 10 Kms. per
hour since he was passing through a crowded area and had
slowed down the Bus. The drunken motorcyclist collided
with the Bus and suffered injuries. As a consequence of
which he passed away after about four days.
6] He further submits that a witness had stated
that the motorcyclist had consumed liquor. There was no
other evidence which could pinpoint the charge of
reckless and negligent driving. The Industrial Court,
therefore, rightly concluded that there is no evidence
available for proving the charges against the respondent.
He, therefore, prays for the dismissal of this petition
with costs.
7] I have considered the submissions of the learned
Advocates.
8] It is trite law that if a domestic enquiry is
questioned on account of non-observance of the principles
of natural justice or on the ground that the findings of
the Enquiry Officer are not supported by evidence and
hence are perverse, the Industrial or the Labour Court,
as the case may be, has to frame two issues, which are as
WP 7035/12
- 4 -
under:-
a] Whether the complainant proves that the
enquiry is vitiated on account of non-observance
of the principles of natural justice ? and
b] Whether the complainant proves that the
findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse ?
The record reveals that these two issues were not
framed by the Industrial Court before causing an
interference in the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
9] It is trite law that these two issues have to be
decided peremptorily since a verdict on these issues
constitutes the part one judgment of the concerned Court.
It does not amount to an interlocutory order. If the
Court comes to a conclusion that the enquiry deserves to
be set aside on any of the above referred two issues, the
entire enquiry stands watered down and the employer
acquires the right to conduct a de-novo enquiry, provided
such a right is reserved in the written statement in the
light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (five
Judges) in the matter of Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation v. Lakshmidevamma (2001 II CLR 640).
10] In the light of the above, the impugned judgment
WP 7035/12
- 5 -
of the Industrial Court is unsustainable. This petition
is, therefore, partly allowed. The impugned judgment of
the Industrial Court dated 13.3.2012 is quashed and set
aside. Complaint (ULP) No.120/2010 is remitted back to
the Industrial Court for framing the above mentioned two
issues.
11] Needless to state, the Industrial Court shall
deal with the abovesaid two issues on the basis of the
original record and proceedings of the enquiry and in the
light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of
Maharashtra State Cooperative Cotton Growers Marketing
Federation Ltd. v. Vasant Ambadas Deshpande (supra).
12] Since the petitioner has also raised an issue of
delay as the order of punishment dated 28.2.2004 has been
challenged in the complaint filed in 2010, the Industrial
Court shall deal with the said issue. Contentions of the
parties on the said issue are kept open.
13] Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
ndk/c831621.doc
